Established in 1933, the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) has been responsible for the collection, publication, analysis and interpretation of sea level data from the global network of tide gauges.

but unfortunately (from the 1997 article I linked above)

Quote:

It is well established that sea level trends obtained from tide gauge records shorter than about 50-60 years are corrupted by interdecadal sea level variation.

Seems tide gauge data is deeply flawed, no?

Quote:

It is essential to further evaluatethe GSLR during the late Holocene through more field investigations, and refine and verify estimates for the period of the recording tide gauge. But tide gaugeresults will always suffer from the fact of their poor geographic distribution, as eloquently discussed by Groger and Plag (1993). Indeed, the very existence ofaltimeter satellites such as TOPEX/POSEIDON is due to the inherent limitations of any conceivable tide gauge network! Satellite altimetry of TOPEX/POSEIDONquality has both the requisite precision and geographic coverage to determine the current rate of GSLR in a reasonable time (perhaps one or two decades), and furtherdetect variations in global and regional SLR that might accompany global warming

Douglas wrote that in 1997, 21 years ago. So it has been, ostensibly, long enough that the satellite measurements could resolve the matter. What does the recent satellite data show?

Mention of course of "climate change," but no smug swaggering presentation of the clear cut and unimpeachable data showing sea level rise to speak of on the TOPEX/Poseidon wiki. Strange. Your religious cult tends to be quite engaged with Wiki, so I naturally would have expected that page to have been a gigantic Cluster of data wanking if the data was in fact good data; but no. The actual data is not so readily available it seems . . .

Please Note: This dataset is retired and will not be maintained in the future. However, this dataset is displayed for archive purposes and may not reflect the most updated information.

ADDIT: I don't have full access to the Douglas 1997 article and cannot be bothered to get on line with the alma mater to reactivate my library card . . . So it is a bit difficult to make complete sense of what exactly he is trying to say. He mentions this "1.8 mm/year over the past 100 years" figure and the context and specifics of that suggest that THAT is the value he is proposing is the valid figure for the least century or so; but in truth I'm not confident of that, every other sentence is a caveat about measurement unreliability or invalidity for one reason or another and even the complete original article might not clarify all such questions.

I have more "science" in the bell-end of my cock than you have ever even imagined exists in the entire universe

I remain VERY interested, and quite skeptical. You should not confuse skepticism for "trolling." That is why you fail as a scientist.

You're a science dropout as far as I can tell. Where's your extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles? Doesn't surprise me to hear that your knowledge of science stems primarily from your dick. There's no evidence of you being able to think using any of your other organs.

I have more "science" in the bell-end of my cock than you have ever even imagined exists in the entire universe

I remain VERY interested, and quite skeptical. You should not confuse skepticism for "trolling." That is why you fail as a scientist.

You're a science dropout as far as I can tell. Where's your extensive list of peer reviewed journal articles? Doesn't surprise me to hear that your knowledge of science stems primarily from your dick. There's no evidence of you being able to think using any of your other organs.

You regard an "extensive list of of peer reviewed journal articles" as the mark of a scientist do you? You're making my point for me. You're a gull of the modern academy.

My credentials are perfectly irrelevant. What matters are the points I have made repeatedly over the years which you and your fellow cult member have consistently failed to address, just as you have done in response to my query up above from today.

You are a pathetic, self-important, twit, incapable of intelligent conversation with anyone who disagrees with you or one of your pet theories.

What do you want. A Blue Ribbon for "Last place in scientific achievement?"

Quote:

You regard an "extensive list of of peer reviewed journal articles" as the mark of a scientist do you?

You BET I do. When you dismiss a shit ton of science done by experts in the field with no foundation for your point of view and then accuse THEM of being blinded by some kind of faith that exists only in your bellend, credentials matter.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum